FAQs

• A streamlined Head Start pathway for councils that are ready to develop and progress reorganisation proposals, with the aim of creating unitary authorities within a region.
• A compulsory Backstop process after the 2028 local elections for councils not progressing through Head Start.
• At the 2028 local elections, regional councillors will be replaced with an interim body (for example, a board of mayors, Crown commissioners, or a combination of both). The precise model will be confirmed later.

Any two or more territorial and/or unitary authorities including cross-boundary groupings, may submit if they represent a majority of either the:

• directly affected territorial authorities, or
• population across directly affected areas.

Proposals cannot be submitted by minority groupings, individual territorial authorities or unitary authorities, regional councils, individuals or other organisations.

Five criteria will be used to assess the proposals:

• Deliverability: Proposals are realistic and demonstrate how new arrangements can be implemented in a timely manner.
• Supports the new planning system: Shows clear support for implementing the new planning system – including progress on spatial and natural environment plan development – and avoids or minimises disruption to that work.
• Simplifies local governance: Proposes more efficient regional governance arrangements, consolidating decision-making and improving alignment between a region’s councils.
• Economies of scale: Supports regional strategic planning and effective delivery of key regional functions (such as transport and catchment management), and demonstrates responsible and affordable asset management, infrastructure investment, and service delivery.
• Maintains local voice: Demonstrates fair and effective representation for communities of interest and how decisions will be made at the local level, balancing urban and rural interests.

Possible models:

A single Bay of Plenty unitary council

One council covering the whole Bay of Plenty region (including both regional and district/city functions).

What it could look like:

• Eastern Bay councils join with Western Bay of Plenty and Tauranga
• A larger Bay of Plenty-wide unitary authority is created

What this could mean:

• Greater scale and shared resources across the wider region
• More integrated planning for growth, infrastructure, and transport
• Potential efficiencies from a larger organisation

Things to consider:

• How to maintain a strong local voice for Eastern Bay communities
• How decision-making would reflect different communities across a larger region

An Eastern Bay sub regional unitary council

A unitary authority covering the Eastern Bay area (the current Kawerau, Whakatāne and Ōpōtiki Districts).

What it could look like:

• Whakatāne, Ōpōtiki and Kawerau councils combine
• A single Eastern Bay unitary authority is created

What this could mean:

• A strong local identity and local decision-making focus
• Services planned and delivered across the Eastern Bay as one area
• Less overlap between councils

Things to consider:

• Whether this option provides enough scale to meet future infrastructure and planning needs
• How regional services (like environmental management and flood protection) would be delivered

An expanded sub regional unitary council (Eastern Bay + Rotorua and/or others)

A larger grouping that includes the Eastern Bay plus Rotorua and/or other councils, forming a bigger unitary authority.

What it could look like:

• Eastern Bay combine with Rotorua Lakes Council/potentially others
• A larger, multi-district unitary authority is formed

What this could mean:

• Greater scale for infrastructure and economic development
• Stronger alignment across key growth areas and transport networks
• Potential for more coordinated long-term planning

Things to consider:

• Ensuring fair representation across diverse communities
• Balancing the needs of urban centres and smaller communities

• DIA's official overview of Simplifying Local Government
• Head Start pathway: Simplifying Local Government
• Mayor Tánczos' opinion piece below:

Reforming the Council - in more ways than one - Mayor Táncoz

In November last year the Government announced its “Simplifying Local Government” reforms. The plan was to sack the elected regional councillors and set up “Combined Territories Boards” (CTB) of mayors to run the regional councils. Those CTBs would also be tasked with reorganising and amalgamating councils across the region. This would make new unitary authorities – organisations that have the functions of both regional councils and territorial authorities (city / district councils).

Last week the Government announced an add-on. Under its ‘Head Start’ process, territorial authorities who are ready to begin amalgamating have three months to come up with a high level proposal. If that is approved by the Government, they then have until March 2027 to come up with a detailed plan of what they intend to do. If that plan is also approved, that new amalgamated unitary authority is what will be in place for the local government elections in 2028.

The proposals must come from more than one territorial authority and there are provisions that allow groups of councils to swallow up unwilling districts, if they have either a majority of the population or the majority of the number of councils in the affected area. Basically, that means that a couple of big councils in a region could force all the smaller councils into a single unitary authority against their will. I’m pleased that in my talks with mayors across the region, all have said indicated that they have no intention of going down that path. 

If councils don’t choose to be part of ‘Head Start’, they will go into the 2028 election as they are, but ‘back stop’ legislation will force them to amalgamate before the 2031 election. They will have very little say over what that looks like. The signals I’m getting are that even if there is a change of government in this year’s general election, the full sweep of reforms will broadly remain in place. There may be changes in some of the details, but that is all.

I have been talking with mayors across the Bay of Plenty to discuss what this means for us all and how to respond. There are a lot of unanswered questions. What happens to the remnant councils if other councils in a region combine into a subregion under ‘Head Start’? What will happen to community boards? What happens to regional council capital assets (such as Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s Quayside Holdings the majority owner of the Port of Tauranga)?  And I know our Chief Executives will also be thinking about what it means for the people they employ.

Being part of a larger council will probably lead to some cost savings simply because of economies of scale, but it will inevitably mean a reduction of local voice and representation. Conversely a smaller grouping of councils will allow better local representation, but the savings will be less. Either way, the Government is clear that change is coming. The only question seems to be whether we want to decide what that might look like or have it done to us with no say over the final shape.

The Government has made it clear that it wants region-wide unitary councils out of this, although they are willing to consider subregional groupings. A few of the possible options for this area include:

• A Bay of Plenty single unitary council.
• An Eastern bay sub-regional unitary council that covers Whakatāne, Ōpōtiki and Kawerau.
• A sub-regional unitary council that covers the Eastern Bay plus Rotorua and/or others.

There is not much time to talk to our communities about all of this, or with local iwi and hapū, but I am keen to hear from the people of this District. I want your voices to guide the discussions about how we move forward. Council will be setting up an Information page and portal on our website so that you can share your thoughts. We’ll also take note of comments on the Council’s Social Media channels that we’ll post in the coming week.

In the meantime we need to carry on with business as usual, despite the significant amount of time and resources that these reforms are sucking up. The Government has said that there will be no money coming from them to help pay for all the work these reforms are creating. So while we grapple with how to pay for it all, we are still focussed on how to make cost savings in other areas.

I was elected on a platform of the importance of social infrastructure, which some people see as ‘nice to haves’. I don’t see community facilities that way. Community halls, libraries, sports facilities and parks don’t actually cost that much in the scheme of things, and the price we pay to not have them is much higher in my opinion, in social exclusion, dislocation and anti-social behaviour.

The same cannot be said when talking about private benefits for a small number of residents. This Council has been making some tough decisions recently, to say no to influential parts of the community who expect ratepayers to foot the bill for their personal interests. Often this expectation is based on Council having done things a certain way in the past. Those days are at an end.

Councillors are trustees of the public purse. Public money should only be spent in the public interest. Many things are a mix of private and public benefit, and some cost sharing is appropriate in those cases, but the public benefit part needs to be demonstrated. 

Change is coming. We'd love you to help us get the best outcome.

There are real trade-offs: economies of scale, local representation, and how services are delivered. Tell us what matters most to you.